Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare 2019 Report ......companies that are considered to have...

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2019

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report2019Nicky Amos & Dr Rory Sullivan

32


The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare (BBFAW) is the leading global measure of farm animal welfare management, policy commitment, performance and disclosure in food companies. It enables investors, companies, NGOs and other stakeholders to understand corporate practice and performance on farm animal welfare, and it drives – directly and through the efforts of others – corporate improvements in the welfare of animals reared for food.

BBFAW maintains the Global Investor Statement on Farm Animal Welfare and convenes the Global Investor Collaboration on Farm Animal Welfare, a collaborative engagement between major institutional investors and food companies on the issue of farm animal welfare. In addition, BBFAW manages extensive engagement programmes with companies and with investors, and provides practical guidance and tools for companies and for investors on key animal welfare issues.

The programme is supported by BBFAW’s founding partners, Compassion in World Farming and World Animal Protection, who provide technical expertise, guidance, funding and practical resources.

More information on the programme can be found at www.bbfaw.com

Compassion in World FarmingCompassion in World Farming is the leading farm animal welfare charity advancing the wellbeing of farm animals through advocacy, political lobbying and positive corporate engagement. The Food Business programme works in partnership with major food companies to raise baseline standards for animal welfare throughout their global supply. The team offers strategic advice and expert technical support for the development, implementation and communication of higher welfare policies and practices, and, increasingly, frameworks for a more humane sustainable food system.

Compassion engages directly with many of the companies benchmarked in the BBFAW to highlight and support with policy development, welfare improvement and transparent reporting. The Food Business team uses the Benchmark alongside Compassion’s other tools such as the Supermarket Survey, its Awards programme, and its advisory services, to help companies understand how they are performing relative to their peers, to identify areas and mechanisms for continuous improvement, and to highlight sources of risk and advantage.

More information on Compassion in World Farming can be found at www.ciwf.org More information on the work of the Food Business team at Compassion in World Farming can be found at www.compassioninfoodbusiness.com

World Animal ProtectionWorld Animal Protection has moved the world to protect animals for over 50 years. As a global organisation with 14 offices all over the world, they work to improve the welfare of animals. The organisation’s activities focus on creating impact at scale – working with governments, international bodies and companies to give animals a better life. They target wild animals in the entertainment and medicine trades, farm animals in industrial systems, animals living in communities and those caught in natural disasters to protect their lives and people who depend on them. World Animal Protection influences decision makers to put animals on the global agenda and inspires individuals, communities and companies to take action.

Through its corporate engagement work, World Animal Protection works with leading food companies across the value chain to support their efforts to improve welfare animal standards in their operations.

To learn more about World Animal Protection’s work, our news, successes and how we can support you, please visit www.worldanimalprotection.org

ContentsForeword ..................................................................................................... 4

The 2019 Benchmark highlights .......................................................... 6

1. The 2019 Benchmark: an overview ................................................ 9

2. The 2019 Benchmark results ........................................................15

3. In focus - farm animal welfare performance ..............................42

4. Accelerating impact .........................................................................52

5. Appendices .........................................................................................59 • Appendix 1: 2019 Benchmark questions and scoring • Appendix 2: 2019 list of companies • References • Related partner initiatives

AcknowledgementsThis report has been prepared by the BBFAW Secretariat run by Chronos Sustainability Ltd. The lead authors were Nicky Amos and Dr Rory Sullivan, with contributions from Elisabeth Tjärnström, Darren Vanstone, Vanessa Gardner, Dr Steve Webster, Dr Heleen van de Weerd, Dr Jon Day, Robert Black, Jacqueline Macalister, and Tom Dorrington Ward.

We would like to thank the following for their support of this project and their contribution to the design and development of the 2019 Benchmark:

• Philip Lymbery, Dr Tracey Jones, Louise Valducci, Nathan Rhys Williams and the Food Business team (Compassion in World Farming).

• Steve McIvor, Dr Martin Cooke, Dr Sarah Ison, Rafel Servent, Dr Nancy Clarke and the Corporate Engagement team (World Animal Protection).

• The many companies, investors and other stakeholders who participated in meetings and teleconferences, who provided input to the 2019 Benchmark consultation process, and who provided feedback on the assessment process and methodology.

This report is dedicated to Dr Martin Cooke whose passion and dedication to animal welfare significantly contributed to improving the lives of animals throughout his lifetime.

Photography creditsCover – Shutterstock (Budimir Jevtic, Zlikovec)P5 – Unsplash (Pascal Debrunner), Shutterstock (Kozlik)P9 – Shutterstock (ABrowne), Unsplash (James Hammond)P15 – Shutterstock (Muythaisong Pitakpong), iStock (Tsekmister)P43 – iStock (Marius Dobilas), Unsplash (Chris Bair)P53 – iStock (Emholk), Food Animal InitiativeP59 – iStock (Achisatha Khamsuwan), Shutterstock (Guitar photographer)

54


ForewordWhether investing in equities, bonds or real assets such as property or infrastructure, integrating environmental, social and governance (ESG) factors into investment decisions and being responsible stewards of clients’ assets should be non-negotiable for asset managers. ESG factors can have a material risk on an investment and understanding these issues, and how they shape the wider economy and society, allows us to spot investment risks and opportunities.

Since its inception, BBFAW has presented investors with farm animal welfare- related ESG information in terms that are relevant and aligned to investors’ interests. Building on a clear, publicly available methodology, BBFAW enables us to analyse management quality in a systematic and consistent manner. The annual reporting cycle of the Benchmark helps us understand important themes and assess whether companies are improving, stagnating or getting worse. It also helps us gauge whether companies are responding to engagement with their investors.

The 2019 Benchmark reveals how certain leading companies are demonstrating that action on animal welfare is possible within a competitive environment. The number of companies that are considered to have farm animal welfare as an integral part of their business strategy has grown significantly over the eight benchmark cycles, from three (out of 68) in 2012 to 22 (out of 150) in 2019. With 95 companies (63 per cent) now reporting at least some animal welfare performance data, we are beginning to see how companies’ management systems and processes are translating into improved welfare outcomes.

Nevertheless, much more needs to be done. The overall average score for performance reporting is just 15 per cent, while far too many low-ranking companies have not changed their practices at all. We hope, as the issue moves further into the mainstream, that next year will see a significant improvement in companies’ commitments to improve animal welfare.

Aviva Investors is proud to be a founding signatory of the BBFAW 2016 Global Investor Statement on Farm Animal Welfare – the first of its kind - and consider it a useful way of signalling our interest and intent to the capital markets. The launch of this 2019 BBFAW Benchmark provides further proof that this is an issue that many large investors, and their clients, are increasingly concerned about.

In conclusion, BBFAW has changed the conversation between investors and companies and succeeded in adding farm animal welfare to the spectrum of ESG issues that are considered. We would like to congratulate BBFAW partners, Compassion in World Farming and World Animal Protection, and the BBFAW secretariat, Chronos Sustainability, for their dedication to bringing farm animal welfare onto the investor agenda, and for their tireless work with companies to raise welfare standards for the benefit of the billions of animals farmed for food globally. Abigail HerronGlobal Head of Responsible InvestmentAviva Investors

The 2019 BenchmarkHighlights

7


6

The 2019 Benchmark highlights

The 2019 Benchmark covers 150 global food companies:• 52 Retailers and Wholesalers, 63 Producers and Manufacturers, and 35 Restaurants

and Bars.

• 50 companies from North America, 70 from Europe and the remaining balance from a mix of countries including Australia, Brazil, China, Japan, New Zealand and Thailand.

Key Findings1. The pace of change is accelerating – companies increasingly recognise farm animal welfare as integral to their business strategy

As shown in Figure 1, the number of companies that are considered to have farm animal welfare as an integral part of their business strategy (corresponding to Tiers 1 and 2 in the Benchmark) has grown significantly over the eight Benchmark cycles, from 3 (out of 68) in 2012 to 22 (out of 150) in 2019. When we note that we added 43 new companies in 2018 (almost all of whom provided limited or no evidence on their approach to farm animal welfare), we can see that the landscape of farm animal welfare is changing dramatically and at a faster pace than in previous years. These improvements are even more striking given the tightening of the Benchmark criteria and the increased emphasis on performance reporting and impact over time.

Our discussions with companies suggest that this acceleration is being driven by consumer interest in farm animal welfare, and the growing salience of the business risks and opportunities associated with farm animal welfare.

The BBFAW continues to be an important driver of change, with companies using the BBFAW to drive continuous improvement in farm animal welfare practices, performance and disclosure, to compare their approach against industry peers, and to raise the profile of animal welfare internally and through their supply chains.

2. Companies are working to ensure their farm animal welfare management systems are effectiveA majority of companies are not only formalising their farm animal welfare policies, but are also assigning management responsibilities, providing animal welfare training to

The 2019 Benchmark highlightsThis is the eighth annual report from the Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare. It analyses the farm animal welfare management and performance of 150 of the world’s largest food companies, across 37 distinct, objective criteria. As such, it is the most authoritative and comprehensive global account of corporate practice on farm animal welfare.

80% of companies have moved up at least one tier since the first Benchmark in 2012

employees, setting objectives and targets, and implementing supply chain management processes. Of the 150 companies covered by the 2019 Benchmark, 88 (59%) now have explicit board or senior management oversight of farm animal welfare (compared to just 15 companies (22%) in 2012, and 112 (75%) have published formal improvement objectives for farm animal welfare (compared to 18 companies (26%) in 2012. Other actions being taken by companies include using outcome measures to drive and incentivise continual improvement in farm animal welfare performance, working with suppliers to develop and implement effective farm animal welfare policies and processes, appointing dedicated farm animal welfare specialists, and promoting higher animal welfare to consumers.

Our analysis of the changes in company tier rankings between 2012 and 2019 (see Table 1) highlights the progress made by the 55 food companies that have been continuously included in the Benchmark since 2012. Among these companies, 44 (80%) have moved up at least one Tier since 2012; of these, 14 (25%) moved up one Tier, 18 (33%) moved up two Tiers and 12 (22%) moved up three Tiers. These improvements are even more striking given the tightening of the Benchmark criteria and the increased emphasis on performance reporting and impact over this time.

Down 1 Tier No Tier change Up 1 Tier Up 2 Tiers Up 3 Tiers

Unilever AutogrillThe Co-op (UK)GategroupGroupe LactalisMarfrigMarsMcDonald’sMüller GroupStarbucksSubway

Arla FoodsCarrefourCompass GroupFrieslandCampinaICA GruppenJ SainsburyKauflandLidlMercadonaNoble FoodsTyson FoodsUmoe GruppenVion Food GroupWm Morrison

2 Sisters Food GroupAssociated British FoodsBarillaCamstCoop Group (Switzerland)CremoniniDanish CrownGroupe AuchanGroupe DanoneJD WetherspoonMarks & SpencerMetroMitchells & ButlersREWE GroupTescoWalmartWhitbreadYum! Brands

Aldi SüdAramarkCargillCranswickElior GroupGreggsGroupe CasinoMigrosNestléPremier FoodsSodexoWaitrose

1 10 14 18 12

Table 1: Tier changes 2012-2019 (trend companies*)

*Of the 68 companies covered by the 2012 Benchmark, 13 companies are no longer included in the Benchmark because they have been substantially affected by changes in ownership or business focus.

3. Companies are prioritising action on close confinement and non-therapeutic antibiotic use Many of the major animal welfare issues can be directly attributed to the systems in which animals are raised. Close confinement systems are associated with a higher prevalence of aggression, and other abnormal and stress related behaviours. Furthermore, these systems can lead to a poorer animal health status and potentiate a higher use of antibiotics. This higher usage of antibiotics in close confinement systems happens across the different farmed species and is a key contributor to the wider societal issue of antimicrobial resistance.

The elimination of close confinement and reductions in the use of routine (i.e. non-therapeutic) antibiotics in farming have been key campaigning goals for many animal welfare NGOs in Europe and the US. These issues have also received extensive media coverage. The effects of these pressures are being seen. One hundred and sixteen companies (77%) have made commitments to the avoidance of close confinement in one or more of the major markets in which they operate. Particular progress has been made in relation to commitments to cage-free laying hens, the phasing out of sow stalls/gestation crates, and the setting of lower maximum stocking densities for broiler chickens.

In recent decades, the intensification of animal production due to the increasing demand for products of animal origin has led to an increasing overall use of antimicrobials. In addition, the volume of antimicrobials used also increases when

Figure 1: The evolution of farm animal welfare

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 20192018

No. ofcompanies

Integral to business strategy

Some evidence of implementation

Limited or no evidence

3 710

1113

17

17 22

24

41

26

37

30

40

43

36

44

42

52

41

63 70

7058

116global food companies have made commitments to the avoidance of close confinement in one or more of the major markets in which they operate

97global food companies have made commitments to the reduction or avoidance of routine antibiotics in one or more of the major markets in which they operate

98

specific diseases are being targeted or to prevent the spread of a particular disease, or in times of stress. While the prudent use of antibiotics is important to treat animal diseases, its overuse and misuse can contribute to antimicrobial resistance in both animals and humans. The challenge is to reduce antimicrobial use in livestock production whilst maintaining animal health, welfare and productivity. Ninety-seven companies (65%) have made commitments to the reduction or avoidance of routine antibiotics in animal production. Of these, 22 companies have made universal commitments across all relevant geographies, species and products. Particular efforts are being made by companies to minimise antimicrobial use through, for example, applying good husbandry practices while handling animals; improving animal welfare (e.g. ensuring good air and water supply quality, appropriate ventilation rates and space allocation); ensuring good hygiene, biosecurity measures, and general conditions on farms; applying rigorous disease control measures (e.g. vaccination); using feed ingredients/additives that enhance the efficiency of feed conversion to substitute antibiotics as growth promoters (e.g. in-feed enzymes, probiotics, prebiotics, acidifiers, plant extracts, essential oils and many others).

4. Management systems and processes appear to be delivering better welfare outcomes for farm animals but progress is slowWith 104 companies (69%) now reporting at least some animal welfare performance data, we are beginning to see how companies’ management systems and processes are translating into improved welfare outcomes. For example, 12 companies report that 100% of the laying hens in their supply chains are free from close confinement, eight companies report that 100% of pigs in their supply chains are free from sow stalls/gestation crates, and three companies report that more than half of the broiler chickens in their supply chains are kept at or below a maximum stocking density of 30 kg/m2. Despite some good progress being made by a handful of companies, performance reporting overall remains weak, with companies achieving an average score of just 15% for the performance section. This suggests that while companies have strengthened their farm animal welfare management systems and processes, they have yet to translate this effort into improved welfare outcomes for animals. While we recognise that it takes time for companies to reach a stage where they are confident in the data they report, we would expect to see improvements in the scoring of this section of the Benchmark in the future. This will require companies both to expand the scope of their performance reporting to cover relevant species and welfare topics, and to more accurately report on their welfare impacts as a proportion of their global supply chains.

5. The UK has a clear leadership positionThe UK continues to lead the global food industry on farm animal welfare management, reporting and performance. Companies that are domiciled in the UK are also making the most progress year-on-year in both their governance of farm animal welfare and their performance reporting on farm animal welfare.

UK companies achieved an average score of 64% compared to 40% for companies in Europe (excluding the UK) and 34% for all companies covered by the Benchmark.

6. Food companies are starting to address systemic challenges to driving higher welfare standardsIn our 2019 survey of how companies use the Benchmark, customer willingness to pay continues to be the principal barrier to adopting higher standards of farm animal welfare, with 79% of companies identifying this as a key concern. This is despite recent evidence that consumers are more willing to pay higher costs when they have been provided with more knowledge about animal welfare1.

Companies also indicated a possible conflict between higher animal welfare production and other sustainability issues (cited by 47% of respondents), while 43% cited a lack of concern by suppliers and/or business customers, who considered their current approach to be adequate.

In response to these challenges, 86% of companies responding to our survey indicated that they are engaging with suppliers to exchange knowledge, and 44% are providing financial incentives (e.g. price premiums, extended term contracts, contracts based on cost-of-production) for suppliers. The fact that 68% of company respondents are partnering with industry stakeholders indicates a willingness by food companies to work collaboratively to advance animal welfare standards.

1. The 2019 BenchmarkAn overview69%

of companies report some animal welfare performance data, but the overall average score for performance reporting is just 15%

68% of companies are partnering with industry stakeholders to advance animal welfare.

64% compared to 34% for all companies covered by the Benchmark.

UK companies achieved an average score of


1110

The Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare Report 2019 1. The 2019 Benchmark: an overview

The Benchmark assesses companies across four core areas as indicated in Table 1.13.

The full evaluation criteria are provided in Appendix 1.

Table 1.1: Benchmark elements

Pillar Key elements % weighting

1. Management Commitment

• Explanation of why farm animal welfare is important to the business.

• Statement of overarching farm animal welfare policy that sets out core principles and beliefs on farm animal welfare and that explains how these are addressed and implemented throughout the business.

• Statement of specific policy positions on key welfare concerns such as close confinement, environmental enrichment, routine mutilations, antibiotic usage, pre-slaughter stunning, and long-distance live transportation.

26

2. Governance and Management

• Allocation of responsibilities for day-to-day management and oversight of the company’s farm animal welfare policy.

• Adoption of farm animal welfare-related objectives, targets and performance indicators, including the allocation of resources and responsibilities for the delivery of these.

• Establishment of appropriate control systems such as employee training on farm animal welfare, corrective action.

28

3. Leadership and Innovation

• Involvement in research and development programmes to advance farm animal welfare.

• Involvement in industry or other initiatives directed at improving farm animal welfare.

• Promotion of higher farm animal welfare amongst customers or consumers.

11

4. Performance Reporting and Impact

• Reporting on farm animal welfare performance measures such as the proportion of animals free from confinement and from routine mutilations, the proportion of animals pre-slaughter stunned, and permitted live transport times.

• Impact on key farm animal welfare issues, such as the actual proportion of animals free from close confinement, the proportion of animals free from routine mutilations, the proportion of animals pre-slaughter stunned and the proportion of animals transported within specified maximum journey times.

35

The benchmarking process4Companies were assessed solely on the basis of information published at the time of the assessments (August-October 2019). The preliminary company assessments were peer reviewed and quality checked prior to a technical review conducted by Compassion in World Farming and by World Animal Protection in early October. Following this, the BBFAW companies were invited during October and November to review their draft assessments to check the factual accuracy of the assessment and to ensure that all relevant information had been considered by the assessor.

Companies coveredThe 2019 Benchmark assessed 150 companies. Some minor changes were made to the universe of companies following changes to ownership as follows:

• SuperValu was assessed as part of its parent company, United Natural Foods Inc (UNFI).

• Panera Bread was assessed as part of its parent company, JAB Holding Company.

• Sonic Corporation was assessed as part of its parent company, Inspire Brands Inc.

• Coles Supermarkets was assessed as a separate entity following the demerger of Coles Group from Wesfarmers. Wesfarmers was removed from the 2019 company scope.

These changes meant that UNFI, JAB Holding Company, Inspire Brands, and Coles Group were assessed for the first time in 2019.

Additionally, two companies were renamed following changes to their trading name:

• Marine Harvest SA is now listed as Mowi ASA.

• Nippon Meat Packers is now listed as Nippon Ham.

A full list of the companies covered by the 2019 Benchmark is provided in Appendix 2.

As a result of these changes, the 2019 Benchmark covered (see Appendix 2):

• 94 public companies (92 in 2018)

• 38 private companies (40 in 2018)

• 14 cooperatives

• 4 joint stock/partnership owned companies.

The changes also meant that the 2019 Benchmark covered one new country, Luxembourg, due to JAB Holding Company being domiciled in this country.

The total number of countries of origin covered by the BBFAW increased from 23 in 2018 to 24 in 2019.

The Benchmark structureThis is the eighth Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare (BBFAW) report2. As with previous Benchmarks, it analyses the farm animal welfare policies, management systems, reporting and performance of the world’s largest food companies. 4

companies assessed for the first time in 2019

13


12

1. The 2019 Benchmark: an overview

Figure 1.1: Geographic distribution of the companies covered by the 2019 Benchmark

Asia Pacific 13%

Europe 34%

Latin America 7%

USA and Canada 33%

UK 13%

In terms of the distribution of companies by sub-sector, the 2019 Benchmark covered: 52 Retailers & Wholesalers, 63 Producers & Manufacturers and 35 Restaurants & Bars.

15


14

2. The 2019 BenchmarkResults

US$500 billioncombined revenues of BBFAW producers and processors

US$220 billioncombined revenues of BBFAW restaurants and bars

US$2.5 trillioncombined retail revenues of BBFAW retailers and wholesalers

Global power of BBFAW companies

17


16

2. The 2019 Benchmark Results

The headline finding from the 2019 Benchmark is that farm animal welfare leadership and improved management practices are increasingly becoming institutionalised, with more than 60% of the world’s largest food companies (corresponding to those companies in Tiers 1 to 4) focusing efforts to ensure that farm animal welfare is effectively managed. The average score for all companies covered in the 2019 Benchmark was 34%, which is a slight increase on the average score of 32% in 2018. This score continues to be skewed downward by the 43 companies added to the Benchmark in 2018, with the new companies achieving an average score of just 20% in 2019 (against 16% in 2018). The average score has also been marginally affected by the adjustment to the weighting of scores for the performance questions in 2019. A more accurate picture of the performance of food companies on farm animal welfare can be obtained by excluding the companies introduced to the Benchmark in 2018 (see Figure 2.1). This shows an overall average score of 40% (an increase of +3% from 2017), including the adjustment to the weighting of scores for performance questions (see page 20) or 41% when scored without the adjustment in weighting, for comparison.

Farm animal welfare leadership and improved management practices are starting to become institutionalised

Figure 2.1 Average scores (total companies vs trend companies 2012-2019)†

*Introduced in 2014 and incorporated into company scores for the first time in 2015†Of the 68 companies covered by the 2012 Benchmark, 13 companies are no longer included in the Benchmark because they have been substantially affected by changes in ownership or business focus.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Management Commitment

29% 31%34% 38%

38% 41%43% 50%

48% 56%51% 62%

47%

2012201320142015201620172018 63%

49%2019 65%

Governance and Management

2012201320142015201620172018

20%

28%28%

38%43%

55%60%40%

42%36%

33%26%

25%19%

2019 60%42%

Innovation andLeadership

2012201320142015201620172018

22%29%

33%35%

36%44%

49%27%29%

27%26%26%

25%18%

2019 62%40%

PerformanceReporting

and Impact* 2015201620172018

13%16%

22%28%

201220132014

16%2019 27%15%

15%12%

10%

Overall Score

2019 50%34%

2012201320142015201620172018

25%32%

34%39%

42%48%48%32%

37%34%

33%30%

28%23%

Total Companies Trend Companies

Key

Company rankings and performanceThese improvements are reflected in the performance of the individual companies covered by the Benchmark. As in previous Benchmarks, we have grouped the assessed companies into one of six tiers, based on their overall percentage scores, as indicated in Table 2.1. Figure 2.2 presents a composite picture of company scores, while Table 2.2 shows how the number of companies in each tier has changed over the period 2012 to 2019.

Table 2.1: BBFAW Tiers

Tier Percentage Score

1. The company has taken a leadership position on farm animal welfare >80%

2. The company has made farm animal welfare an integral part of its business strategy

62 – 80%

3. The company has an established approach to a farm animal welfare but has more work to do to ensure it is effectively implemented

44 – 61%

4. The company is making progress on implementing its policies and commitments on farm animal welfare

27 – 43%

5. The company has identified farm animal welfare as a business issue but provides limited evidence that it is managing the issue effectively

11 – 26%

6. The company provides limited if any evidence that it recognises farm animal welfare as a business issue

19


18


Tier Number of Companies

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

1. The company has taken a leadership position on farm animal welfare

0 2 3 4 6 5 5 6

2. The company has made farm animal welfare an integral part of its business strategy

3 5 7 7 7 12 12 16

3. The company has an established approach to farm animal welfare but has more work to do to ensure it is effectively implemented

6 10 14 16 22 29 34 32

4. The company is making progress on implementing its policies and commitments on farm animal welfare

18 16 16 27 22 23 29 38

5. The company has identified farm animal welfare as a business issue but provides limited evidence that it is managing the issue effectively

18 14 19 17 24 20 37 28

6. The company provides limited if any evidence that it recognises farm animal welfare as a business issue

23 23 21 19 18 21 33 30

Total 68 70 80 90 99 110 150 150

Table 2.2: Number of companies by Tier 2012-2019

The key point to highlight is the substantial progress that is being made by companies to implement farm animal welfare into their business processes and strategy. With 30 companies having moved up at least one tier in the 2019 Benchmark, there are now 22 companies who are considered to have made farm animal welfare an integral part of their business strategy (corresponding to Tiers 1 and 2), and 70 companies who are implementing their policies and commitments on farm animal welfare (corresponding to Tiers 3 and 4).

The Benchmark data confirm that improved leadership and management practices for farm animal welfare are starting to become institutionalised. Of the 150 companies covered by the Benchmark, 88 (59%) now have explicit board or senior management oversight of farm animal welfare (compared to 43% in 2018), and 112 (75%) now have published formal improvement objectives for farm animal welfare (compared to 71% in 2018). These are significant changes from earlier Benchmarks; in the 2012 Benchmark, only 22% of companies reported on senior management oversight of farm animal welfare and only 26% had published formal improvement objectives for farm animal welfare.

Despite the year-on-year progress, there is still much to be done. Fifty-eight of the 150 companies appear in Tiers 5 and 6, indicating that these companies provide little or no information on their approach to farm animal welfare. In fact, 38 companies (25%) do not even publish a farm animal welfare policy. We clearly have much to do if we are to get to the point where farm animal welfare is well managed by the food industry globally.

Thirty of the 150 companies assessed in 2018 (see the list in Table 2.3) improved by at least one Tier in the 2019 Benchmark. This is the largest year-on-year increase we have seen since the Benchmark was established in 2012. Eight companies did fall by one Tier (see Table 2.4), a figure that is broadly in line with previous years. Of these, five were directly impacted by the changes in weighting made in the 2019 Benchmark.

Coop Group (Switzerland) Cranswick Marks & Spencer Migros Waitrose Noble Foods

6

ALDI Süd Cargill Chipotle Mexican Grill The Co-op (UK) Danish Crown Greggs PLC Groupe Danone Hilton Food Group J Sainsbury Mitchells & Butlers Nestlé Perdue Farms Premier Foods Tesco Whitbread Wm Morrison

16

2 Sisters Food Group ALDI Nord Aramark Arla Foods Ltd Barilla SpA BRF SA Casino Cheesecake Factory (The) Coles Group Compass Group Domino’s Pizza Group Elior Group Fonterra Hormel Foods ICA Gruppen JBS JD Wetherspoon LDC Les Mousquetaires Maple Leaf Foods McDonald’s Metro AG Mowi ASA REWE Group Royal FrieslandCampina Sodexo Terrena Group Tyson Foods Inc Unilever Vion Food Group Woolworths Limited Yum! Brands Inc

32

Agro Super Associated British Foods Auchan Holdings Camst Campbell Soup Company

Carrefour Charoen Pokphand Foods (CPF)

Coop Italia Coopérative U Enseigne Cooperl Arc Atlantique Colruyt Costco Cremonini SpA Darden Restaurants Edeka Ferrero General Mills Inc Gruppo Veronesi IKEA (Inter IKEA Group) Jeronimo Martins KraftHeinz Kroger Company (The) Lidl Stiftung & Co KG Marfrig Alimentos SA OSI Group Plukon Food Group Publix Super Markets Restaurant Brands International/Burger King

Saputo Schwarz Unternehmens Treuhand KG/Kaufland SSP Group Subway/Doctor’s Associates Inc Sysco Corporation Tönnies Group United Natural Foods Inc (UNFI)

Walmart Inc/Asda Wendy’s Company (The)

WH Group

38

Ahold Delhaize Albertsons Amazon/Whole Foods Market Chick-fil-A CKE Restaurants ConAgra Brands Cooperativa Centrale Aurora Alimentos Cracker Barrel Dean Foods Dunkin’ Brands E.Leclerc Empire Company/Sobey’s Groupe Lactalis H E Butt Company Hershey Co Inspire Brands JAB Holdings Kerry Group Loblaw Companies Limited

Mercadona Minerva Foods Mondelēz International Papa John’s Pizza Sanderson Farms Seaboard Corp Starbucks Corporation Target Corporation Umoe Gruppen

28

Tier 1Leadership Tier 2


Tier 3Established but work to be done

Tier 4Making

progress on implementation

Tier 5On the business

agenda but limited evidence of

implementation

Tier 6No evidence

on the business agenda

Aeon Group Autogrill SpA Bimbo BJ’s Wholesale Club Holdings

Bloomin’ Brands Inc C&S Wholesale Cencosud China Resources Vanguard

China Yurun Group Limited

Chuying Agro-Pastoral Group

CNHLS Conad Consorzio Nazionale

Cooke Seafood Inc Couche-Tard Dicos/Ting Hsin International Group

Gategroup Holding AG Habib’s Industrias Bachoco Lianhua Supermarket Holdings Co

Meiji Holdings Mars Inc Maruha Nichiro Group Müller Group AG New Hope Liuhe Co Ltd Nippon Ham Seven & i Holdings US Foods Wens Foodstuff Group Yonghui Superstores Co Ltd

Zhongpin Inc

30

Key

2019 Up at least 1 tier Down at least 1 tier Non-mover New company

Figure 2.2: Company rankings

companies have improved by at least one Tier between 2018 and 2019

30

21


20

Table 2.3: Companies improving by at least one Tier between 2018 and 2019

Retailers and Wholesalers Producers and Manufacturers Restaurants and Bars

Aldi Süd

Auchan

Colruyt

Coopérative U Enseigne (formerly Systeme U)

E Leclerc

Edeka Group

Jeronimo Martins

Les Mousquetaires

Migros

Sysco Corp

Agro Super

Associated British Foods

Campbell Soup Company

Cooperl Arc

Danish Crown

Fonterra

General Mills

Hilton Food Group

LDC

Maple Leaf Foods

Minerva Foods

Mowi (formerly Marine Harvest)

Nestlé

Premier Foods

Terrena Group

Chipotle Mexican Grill

Darden Restaurants PLC

Mitchells & Butlers PLC

SSP Group

Subway/Doctor’s Associates Inc

Figure 2.3 presents the results of the 2019 Benchmark by sub-sector. The most notable finding is that the restaurants and bars sector has started to once again5 lag behind the food retailer and producer and manufacturer sectors. While the food retailer and producer and manufacturer sectors both improved their average overall scores to 35% (from 32% and 31% in 2018 respectively), the restaurants and bars sector score has remained static at 32%. It is, however, relevant to note that this follows a number of years where the restaurants and bar sector rapidly closed the gap on the other two subsectors.

Table 2.4: Companies falling by one Tier* between 2018 and 2019

Retailers and Wholesalers Producers and Manufacturers Restaurants and Bars

Lidl

Loblaw

KraftHeinz

Marfrig Alimentos SA

Mondelēz International

Unilever NV

Vion Food Group

Dunkin’ Brands

*No company fell by more than 1 Tier

Analysis of impact of adjustment to the weighting of performance questions

This year, we adjusted the weighting of the performance question scores to place greater emphasis on welfare impacts. This means that the 10 questions relating to welfare impact now account for 56% of the weighting of the Performance Reporting and Impact section. This change resulted in a 1% reduction in average overall scores. It also resulted in 10 companies being ranked one Tier lower than they would have ranked without the scoring adjustment and one company being ranked one Tier higher.


0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 ManagementCommitment

Governance andManagement



and Impact

Overall Score

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

49%53%

48%49%

42%43%

42%42%

40%18%

48%45%

15%14%

16%15%

34%32%

35%35%

Producers and ManufacturersRetailers and WholesalersRestaurants and BarsOverall Average Scores

Key

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Figure 2.3: Sub-sector comparison 2019

23


22 23

Figure 2.4: Retailers and Wholesalers

Coop Group (Switzerland) Marks & Spencer PLC Migros Waitrose

4

ALDI Süd/Aldi Einkauf GmbH&Co

J Sainsbury PLC Tesco PLC The Co-op (UK) Wm Morrison Supermarkets PLC

5

ALDI Nord (ALDI Markt) Casino Guichard-Perrachon SA Coles Group ICA Gruppen AB Les Mousquetaires Metro AG REWE Group Woolworths Limited

8

Auchan Holdings Carrefour SA Colruyt Coop Italia Coopérative U Enseigne

Costco Wholesale Corporation Edeka Group IKEA (Inter IKEA Group) Jeronimo Martins Kroger Company (The) Lidl Stiftung & Co KG Publix Super Markets Inc

Schwarz Unternehmens Treuhand KG/Kaufland Sysco Corporation United Natural Foods Inc (UNFI)

Walmart Inc/Asda

16

Ahold Delhaize Albertsons Amazon/Whole Foods Market E.Leclerc Empire Company/Sobey’s H E Butt Company Loblaw Companies Limited

Mercadona SA Target Corporation

9

Aeon Group BJ’s Wholesale Club Holdings

C&S Wholesale Cencosud China Resources Vanguard

Conad Consorzio Nazionale

Couche-Tard Lianhua Supermarket Holdings Co

Seven & i Holdings Yonghui Superstores Co Ltd

10




Tier 4Making




implementation

Tier 6No evidence


Figures 2.4, 2.5 and 2.6 present a listing of all companies in each Tier, by sub-sector.

Figure 2.5: Restaurants and Bars

0

Chipotle Mexican Grill Greggs PLC Mitchells & Butlers PLC Whitbread PLC

4

Aramark Corporation Compass Group PLC Domino’s Pizza Group PLC Elior JD Wetherspoon PLC McDonald’s Corporation Sodexo The Cheesecake Factory Yum! Brands Inc

9

Camst – La Ristorazione Italiana Soc. Coop. ARL

Cremonini SpA Darden Restaurants PLC

Restaurant Brands International/Burger King SSP Group Subway/Doctor’s Associates Inc

Wendy’s Company (The)

7

Chick-fil-A CKE Restaurants Cracker Barrel Dunkin’ Brands Inc Inspire Brands Inc JAB Holdings Papa John’s Pizza Starbucks Corporation Umoe Gruppen AS

9

Autogrill SpA Bloomin’ Brands Inc CNHLS Dicos/Ting Hsin International Group Gategroup Holding AG Habib’s

6




Tier 4Making




implementation

Tier 6No evidence


Cranswick PLC Noble Foods

2

Cargill Danish Crown Groupe Danone SA Hilton Food Group Nestlé SA Perdue Farms Premier Foods PLC

7

2 Sisters Food Group (Boparan Holdings Ltd) Arla Foods Ltd Barilla SpA BRF SA Fonterra Co-operative Group Limited

Hormel Foods Corporation JBS SA LDC Groupe Maple Leaf Foods Mowi ASA Royal FrieslandCampina Terrena Group Tyson Foods Inc Unilever NV Vion Food Group

15

Agro Super Associated British Foods PLC

Campbell Soup Company

Charoen Pokphand Foods (CPF) Cooperl Arc Atlantique Ferrero SpA General Mills Inc Gruppo Veronesi KraftHeinz Marfrig Alimentos SA OSI Group Plukon Food Group Saputo Inc Tönnies Group WH Group Ltd

15

ConAgra Brands Inc Cooperativa Centrale Aurora Alimentos

Dean Foods Groupe Lactalis Hershey Co Kerry Group Minerva Foods Mondelēz International Sanderson Farms Seaboard Corp

10

Cooke Seafood Inc Bimbo China Yurun Group Limited Chuying Agro-Pastoral Group Industrias Bachoco Mars Inc Maruha Nichiro Group Meiji Holdings Müller Group AG New Hope Liuhe Co Ltd Nippon Ham US Foods Wens Foodstuff Group Zhongpin Inc

14




Tier 4Making




implementation

Tier 6No evidence


Figure 2.6: Producers and Manufacturers

Key


Key


Key



25


24


Figure 2.7: Geographic comparison

Figure 2.8: Geographic and sector comparisons (average scores, %)Our analysis based on country of origin (see Figure 2.7) shows that UK domiciled companies, with an average score of 64%, continue to lead the food sector on farm animal welfare. In fact, the average scores for UK companies in the three main Benchmark elements (Management Commitment and Policy, Governance and Management and Performance Reporting and Impact) were more than 1.5 times higher than those for European companies. The strongest overall performance came from UK retailers, who achieved the highest average scores for Governance and Management (87%) and Performance Reporting and Impact (61%). These are significant improvements on 2018, when UK retailers achieved average scores of 74% and 42% respectively for these sections. It is also notable that UK restaurants and bars achieved the highest overall average score for Management Commitment and Policy at 91%, indicating a strong focus from foodservice companies on clarifying their management commitments on key welfare issues.

ManagementCommitment

Governance andManagement



and Impact

Overall Score

79%55%

19%47%

38%49%

75%49%

14%38%

28%42%

62%59%

14%25%25%

40%

45%15%

5%9%

8%15%

64%40%

12%29%

23%34%

UKEurope (excl. UK)Asia PacificNorth America (USA and Canada)Latin AmericaOverall Average Scores

Key

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Food Producers UK Europe (excl. UK) Asia Pacific

North America (USA and Canada)

Latin America

Management Commitment 69 57 21 50 45

Governance and Management 65 52 14 42 35

Innovation 57 66 11 44 31

Performance Reporting 41 19 5 9 10

Overall Score 57 43 12 33 29

No. of Companies 7 19 11 18 8

Food Retailers/Wholesalers UK

Europe (excl. UK) Asia Pacific


Latin America







Restaurants & Bars UK Europe (excl. UK) Asia Pacific


Latin America







27


26


Farm animal welfare policiesOne hundred and thirty-one (87%) of the 150 companies covered by the 2019 Benchmark acknowledge farm animal welfare as a relevant business issue, and 112 companies (75%) now have formal overarching policies on farm animal welfare. Nevertheless, some 38 (25%) major food companies have no formal policy commitments on farm animal welfare.

Figure 2.9 shows that the scope (or coverage) of many farm animal welfare policies is either poorly defined or is limited to specific geographies, specific species and/or specific brands. In practice, different species and different farm animal welfare issues receive different levels of attention. Companies tend to prioritise those species and issues where they have the most significant impact, where they have the most influence and where there is the greatest level of public or consumer attention. Of particular note, the welfare of farmed fish is frequently overlooked by companies when setting out their management commitments in a farm animal welfare policy statement. Despite these shortcomings, 69% of policies now apply to all relevant geographies, 54% apply to all relevant species, and 52% apply to all relevant products. With 37 companies having adopted universal policies (compared to 44 in 2018), it is evident that further effort is needed by food companies to improve the coverage of their farm animal welfare policy statements.

Figure 2.9: Formal animal welfare policies

25%

50%

25%

No policy38 Companies

Universal policy37 companies

Partial policy75 companies

Figure 2.10 shows how companies are continuing to strengthen their management commitments across the spectrum of key welfare topics. The high proportion of companies with policies on the avoidance of close confinement and on the reduction or elimination of routine antibiotics reflects the significant and sustained pressure – from NGOs, consumers, regulators and investors – on these issues in recent years. For example, in the case of close confinement, 116 companies (77%) have made commitments to the avoidance of close confinement. However, only six (4%) of the 150 companies have made universal commitments to the avoidance of close confinement (covering all relevant species, geographies and products).

Similar to the trend in company commitments to the avoidance of close confinement, we are seeing many of the commitments to the reduction or avoidance of routine antibiotics (see Figure 2.15). For example, 97 companies (65%) have made commitments to the reduction or avoidance of routine antibiotics. Of these, 42 companies (28%) have made defined commitments in one or more key geographies (typically in North America and/or in Europe) and covering specific species and/or specific products, and 22 companies (15%) have made universal commitments covering all relevant geographies, species and products.

We are seeing similarly strong trends in company commitments to other key welfare issues, indicating that companies are continuing to strengthen their management commitments to addressing key welfare issues. For example, 54% of companies have made public commitments to the avoidance of growth promoting substances (see Figure 2.15), 51% have made public commitments to provide species-specific environmental enrichment*, and 47% have made public commitments to the avoidance of animals that have not been stunned prior to slaughter.

*The 2019 Benchmark included a new question6 relating to the provision of species-specific environmental enrichment (e.g. brushes for dairy cows, manipulable materials such as straw for pigs, pecking and dustbathing substrates and perches for chickens). Its inclusion in the Benchmark reflects the increasing need for companies to provide stimulating environments for animals that also allow for positive experiences, rather than a focus on the avoidance of negative experiences. Companies are expected to provide animals with stimulating and complex environments that enable species-specific behaviours. It is known that a lot of welfare issues can be avoided when boredom and frustration is diminished and when animals are allowed opportunities to express natural behavioural needs.

The 2019 findings indicate that 77 companies (51%) have published a commitment to provide environmental enrichment for animals, with most companies limiting their commitments to specified geographies, species and products. Only four companies7 have published universal commitments to the provision of environmental enrichment. 1 in 4

major food companies does not have a farm animal welfare policy

60% compared to 31% in the US and Canada and 27% in Europe

The overall score for restaurants and bars in the UK was

The second highest region was Europe (excluding the UK), which achieved an average score of 40%. Here, food retailers and food producers achieved broadly the same overall average scores (42% and 43% respectively), but were significantly ahead of restaurants and bars, whose average score was just 27%.

Other geographic regions lag. The average score for North American companies was 29%, for Latin American companies 23% and for Asia-Pacific companies just 12%. We should note that the lower scores for Asia-Pacific companies reflects the fact that many of the new companies introduced to BBFAW in 2018 came from this region.

One-quarter of corporate animal welfare policies are universally applicable, meaning that they apply to all geographies the company operates in, to all species the company uses and to all products prepared, sold or served by the company.

29


28


Figure 2.10: Percentage of companies with specific policies on farm animal welfare issues Figure 2.11: Commitment to the avoidance of close confinement*

23%

10%

63%

4%

No information

Universal commitment

Partial commitment with clear scope

Partial commitment but unclear scope

Our analysis of the content of these policies confirms the drivers of change, with many of the commitments limited to those markets where pressure from NGOs, consumers, regulators and, increasingly, investors, are the greatest. For example, in the case of close confinement, 116 companies (77%) have made commitments, typically in North America and/or in Europe. While only six (4%) of the 150 companies have made universal commitments to the avoidance of close confinement (covering all relevant species, geographies and products)8, some 95 companies (63%) have specific, clearly defined commitments relating to key geographies, species and/or products.

*Reported for the first time in 2014**Reported for the first time in 2019

*Figures rounded to the nearest full percentage point.

29

20122013201420152016201720182019

20122013201420152016201720182019

20122013201420152016201720182019

201420152016201720182019

20122013201420152016201720182019

20122013201420152016201720182019

20122013201420152016201720182019

2019

Closeconfinement

GMOs

Environmental enrichment**

Growthpromotingsubstances

Prophylactic antibiotic use*

Routinemutilations

Pre-slaughterstunning

Long-distancetransport

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 8070

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 8070

77%77%

79%77%

72%64%

66%49%

51%

46%41%

45%32%

21%30%

27%38%

45%

54%51%

54%

55%61%

47%39%

35%45%

41%45%

33%36%

23%13%

7%47%

41%43%

37%32%

34%26%

13%27%

19%10%

6%6%

21%27%

24%

38%34%

29%18%

65%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Figure 12: Commitment to environmental enrichment*

49%

28%

21%

3%

No informationreported




*Figures founded to the nearest full percentage point.

31


30


Figure 2.13: Commitment to the avoidance of growth promoting substances

46%21%

21%

12%





Figure 2.14: Commitment to avoid GMO/cloned animals

54%

16%

12%

18%





Figure 2.15: Commitment to the reduction or avoidance of antibiotics

35%

28%

22%

15%





*Figures rounded to the nearest full percentage point.

Figure 2.16: Commitment to pre-slaughter stunning

53%

28%

8%

11%





33


32


Figure 2.17: Commitment to the avoidance of long-distance transportation

73%

13%

7%

7%





Figure 2.18: Commitment to the avoidance of routine mutilations

55%

31%

13%

1%





Box 2.1: Examples of company commitments to the avoidance of close confinement

Mitchells & Butlers Welfare statements relating to laying hens• “It is Mitchells & Butlers policy that all products that contain shell egg, egg products and products

with egg as a main ingredient (such as Mayonnaise, Hollandaise Sauce, Quiches, Cheesecake, Scrambled egg, etc) shall be sourced from hens that have been reared in accordance to the requirements of Directive 1999/74/EC Welfare of Laying Hens for the protection of laying hens

• Mitchells & Butlers have extended their procurement of 100% shell on eggs from cage free hens, to include all egg products and egg ingredients and will complete this transition to cage free production by 2025, subject to availability and commercial negotiations

• All shell on eggs, egg products and products with egg as a main ingredient must be sourced, as a minimum requirement, from laying hens kept in enriched cages, where laying hens have at least 750 cm2 of cage area per hen, of which 600 cm2 is useable.

• All hens must be provided with a nesting area and at least 15 cm of perch per hen, with litter provided and unrestricted access to a feed trough

• The use of non-enriched (barren) cages in the production of shell on eggs, egg products and products with egg as a main ingredient is prohibited

• All egg production units must be registered with the relevant local authorities and have a distinguishing number which can be used to trace eggs back to their farm of origin. Mitchells & Butlers are working with suppliers to progress towards achieving a Sourcing Policy for Laying Hens whereby all products containing eggs and egg derivatives are sourced from hens that have not been kept in cages. This would require the procurement of egg derivatives such as dried egg white, powdered egg, dehydrated egg, egg solids and albumen etc. to come from hens kept in barns or free-range production systems

• In addition our Harvester restaurants work in partnership with the British Hen Welfare Trust.”

https://www.mbplc.com/responsibility/goodfood/overarchingpolicy/specieswelfarestatements/

IKEA Food Better Chicken Programme Roadmap for North America, Europe and Asia Pacific

* “IKEA Food operates in additional regions, and we expect them to be compliant with the Better Programmes by 2025. However, the initial focus is on the largest regions North America, Europe, and Asia Pacific — learnings will be used as input for implementation in the remaining regions. Further analysis is required with our suppliers in Asia Pacific.”

https://www.ikea.com/ms/en_JP/this-is-ikea/additional_information/better-chicken/index.html

Regions*

North America Europe Asia Pacific

Stocking density (30 kg/m2)

2020 20202020

Lighting

Flock health plan

No routine use of antibiotics

Environmental enrichment

Environmental conditions

Manure management plan

Non-deforestation feed2025

Phase out highest priority antibiotics

2025 2025Natural light

Further analysis

requiredBreed

Slaughter & transport

35


34


Box 2.2: Examples of company commitments to the avoidance of routine antibiotics

Box 2.3: Examples of company approaches to farm animal welfare governance

Mowi Salmon Welfare Policy“Mowi’s commitment to securing optimal health and welfare in salmon production is underpinned by the application of good husbandry and management practices, biosecurity programmes and veterinary health plans, all under the supervision of our fish health professionals.

The aquaculture company stocks salmon at densities that safeguard their welfare and enhance performance. Maximum stocking densities at sea of 25 kg/m3 ensure that the fish have ample space to swim, with the net pens containing a minimum 97.5% water and only 2.5% fish at the end of the farming cycle.

Mowi vaccinates 100% of fish to reduce the risk of disease and compromised welfare and its breeding programme focuses on improving survival and disease resistance. The company does not produce or sell transgenic salmon.

In cases of disease outbreaks and the need of medicinal treatment to safeguard fish welfare, all treatments are prescribed by certified veterinarians/fish health professionals and are strictly controlled by the authorities. Whenever possible, a sensitivity test is performed prior to any antibiotic treatment to avoid further antibiotic resistance. When antibiotics are used, the withdrawal periods are always respected prior to harvest to ensure no antibiotic residues are found in final products.”

https://mowi.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Mowi-Salmon-Welfare-Policy.pdf

Woolworths Antimicrobial Stewardship Policy “Woolworths recognises the importance of antibiotics in human and animal medicine and the risks associated with their improper use. Producers are encouraged to optimise welfare, health, hygiene, husbandry and biosecurity of animals and avoid the need to use antibiotic treatment unless the welfare of an animal is compromised. Veterinary medicines, including antibiotics are only used under veterinary guidance.

Woolworths works in collaboration with industry to ensure a collaborative approach to antimicrobial stewardship. The program uses the ‘5 R’ approach of Responsibility, Reduction, Refinement, Replacement and Review to take a judicious approach to antibiotic usage.

Approach Responsibility Woolworths supports and encourages industry best practice guidelines and initiatives around responsible antimicrobial stewardship within its supply chains. Suppliers are expected and encouraged to use antibiotics responsibly, and farms are encouraged to have antimicrobial stewardship and herd health plans in place.

ReduceWoolworths seeks to reduce where possible the use of medically important antibiotics and in particular for routine and prophylactic use.

RefineWoolworths is working with its suppliers to ensure that when its livestock animals require treatment, the correct drug and dosing regime is correctly given only to those animals requiring treatment.

ReplaceWoolworths works with and supports industry to reduce the overall need to use antibiotics. It works with suppliers to reduce the need for antibiotics through improved animal welfare and reviewing alternatives to antibiotics such as vaccines, supplements and probiotics.

ReviewWoolworths ensures that there is continuous review and assessment of practices.”

https://www.woolworthsgroup.com.au/page/community-and-responsibility/group-responsibility/responsible-sourcing/Animal_Welfare

Costco Animal Welfare Task Force “Costco’s Animal Welfare Task Force is made up of members from fresh meat buying, corporate and regional buying, animal welfare auditing, and global food safety. This past year the Animal Welfare Task Force worked on the following areas:

• Continuing to identify key global target goals and exploring practical implementation procedures through harmonization with global animal welfare laws and regulations.

• Continuing to benchmark with other industry groups to review best practices.

• Participating on the Coalition for Responsible Antibiotic Use being led by the Center for Food Integrity.

• Reviewing each animal welfare incident involving any Costco supplier. Audits of these facilities are immediately conducted and all supplier corrective actions are reviewed by the Animal Welfare Task Force and actions are taken accordingly.”

https://www.costco.com/sustainability-animal-welfare.html

Danish Crown’s Management of Animal Welfare “Danish Crown is committed to ensuring that across the group all supplying farms and processing sites comply with legislative standards. Furthermore, the company’s Danish, UK, Swedish and German supply chains must be sourced from producers that are accredited to recognised animal welfare schemes including Danish Product Standard, Danish UK Contract, Red Tractor, RSPCA Assured and QS.

As stated on the company website, “Dedicated Agriculture Supply Chain teams work closely with colleagues within the businesses and with farmers, industry organisations and customers to ensure that proscribed welfare standards are maintained and, wherever possible, improved. Our animal welfare requirements are clearly set out in supplier contracts according to specific market demands.

In each of our markets, the Agriculture Team led by the Agriculture Director is responsible for:

• Establishing, communicating and monitoring animal health and welfare standards

• Managing and monitoring independent third-party audit programmes

• Provision of information to the Management Board in the country in which they operate

A global committee comprising senior executives from across the group oversees the development of overall welfare policies. Information will also be reported periodically to the group Management Board.

Governance and managementIn the early years of the Benchmark, we saw companies making high-level policy commitments on farm animal welfare but not explaining how these policy commitments were being translated into action. This raised questions about the level of commitment companies had towards farm animal welfare, and whether investors and other stakeholders could rely on these policy commitments as evidence that companies were actually committed to action and whether they were managing the business risks associated with farm animal welfare.

This is starting to change. Reflecting a trend we have seen in more recent iterations of the Benchmark, approximately half of the companies covered by the Benchmark are now providing evidence that they have established farm animal welfare management systems and processes. For example:

• 88 out of the 150 companies (59%) report some information on responsibilities, at either or both a senior management and/or an operational level, for farm animal welfare.

• 112 companies (75%) have now set farm animal welfare-related objectives and targets.

• 75 companies (50%) report that they include farm animal welfare in supplier contracts.

• 94 companies (63%) describe how they monitor and audit the farm animal welfare performance of their suppliers.

• 64 companies (43%) report on providing animal welfare training to their employees, and 63 (42%) report on having internal controls for managing non-compliance with their farm animal welfare policies.

75% of global food companies have set farm animal welfare-related objectives and targets

37


36


In each market, they are supported by dedicated teams including animal health and welfare and food safety specialists who work with our supply chains, customers and industry organisations to ensure that proscribed standards are consistently implemented.

Processes are in place to review audit reports from farm animal welfare accreditation schemes and from client audit visits. In the event of a non-conformance, and as set out in the Supplier Code of Conduct, the issue will be investigated, and corrective actions taken where required within an agreed timescale. Periodic review of reports is carried out to identify any structural challenges that may need communication to our supply chains.

One of the benefits of our global operations is the facilitation of knowledge transfer across the business to the benefit of all. For example, the learnings from our UK business and their engagement with Bristol University has guided the training of our animal welfare officers at our processing operations in Denmark.

Having direct interests in different markets also places additional challenges on the business. Our Sokolow business was only acquired in 2014, and its integration is a wide-ranging task. In the area of animal welfare, a project was started to establish a focused animal welfare department and the plans also include the development of a business-specific animal welfare policy.”

https://www.danishcrown.com/media/2880/danish-crown-group-animal-welfare-policy.pdf

Perdue FarmsThe company’s 2019 Company Stewardship Report (p23) states “At our Research Farm, we’re learning about different chicken breeds and studying the effects of brighter light, more space, outdoor access and enrichments – all part of our continuous improvement in poultry care.”

Its Animal Care Report 2019 demonstrates commitment to research and innovation across key chicken welfare areas. Perdue Farms also hosts an annual Animal Care Summit, bringing together animal care experts and advocates, customers, farmers, and company leadership.

The company has introduced various financial incentives to ensure that broiler farmer income is not negatively impacted by the implementation of higher welfare measures, such as incentivising live bird-handling and rewards for welfare outcomes in addition to productivity.

https://corporate.perduefarms.com/pdfs/perdue_animal_care_report_2019.pdf

Maple Leaf Food’s Approach to Animal Care Governance“Culture

• Providing our people with the knowledge, skills, resources and workplace culture to reinforce empathy and high standards of animal care.

• Clearly defining and enforcing expectations of our people and suppliers regarding animal care, recognizing best practices and taking swift disciplinary action when necessary.

• Elevating the importance and prominence of animal care in our management processes, operating policies and procedures, employee communications and supplier relations.

Accountability • Establishing strong governance, with senior leaders directly accountable for compliance with our

standards and advancing our goals.

• Reporting quarterly to a Committee of the Board and senior leadership on key animal care metrics, risks and progress toward our goals.

• Requiring our hog and poultry operations and suppliers to adhere, at a minimum, to guidelines under the National Farm Animal Care Council’s Codes of Practice; the Canadian Quality Assurance Program and Animal Care Assessment Program of the Canadian Pork Council; the Animal Care Program of Chicken Farmers of Canada; the Turkey Farmers of Canada Flock Care Program©; the Canadian Hatching Egg Producers CHEQTM Program; and the Chicken Farmers of Ontario Transportation and Safe Handling Program.

• Requiring weekly/monthly internal audits of our operations by employees that are either certified or trained as animal auditors by the Professional Animal Auditor Certification Organization (PAACO), and annual third-party audits across our operations.

• Maintaining a strong and open relationship with the dedicated Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) inspectors and veterinarians at all our processing facilities, and with provincial officials that oversee on-farm animal care.”

https://www.mapleleaffoods.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Maple-Leaf-Foods-2018-Sustainability-Report.pdf

Cargill’s Supplier Code of Conduct“All suppliers globally are required to follow the Supplier Code of Conduct as part of their contracts. It includes reference online to our policies on animal welfare. Many of our supplier contracts also contain specific provisions related to animal welfare. If animal mistreatment or abuse is discovered in any supplier’s operations, we investigate immediately and take actions that can include terminating contracts or legal action.

In addition to the many examples of efforts to drive progress in our supply chains listed elsewhere on this page, others include:

• We communicate our animal welfare policies to all employees and suppliers who handle farm animals in our supply chain. Cargill is held accountable for our animal welfare policies through internal and external third-party audits.

• We have an external advisory council for our turkey business, and our guidelines for our contract growers are based on the National Turkey Federation’s guidance, with oversight from our welfare committee made up of external and internal experts. We educate and certify all of our contract growers on how to properly handle their turkeys through a program developed in partnership with academic experts. Our turkey business also runs programs to educate employees, truck drivers and first responders on animal handling in the case of emergencies.

• In Canada, Cargill conducts CowSignals training programs for dairy farmers to help them analyze environmental and health factors that affect their cows’ comfort, milk production and longevity. Since 2013, groups of local farmers have participated in more than 175 sessions including insights about topics ranging from stall spacing and animal bedding to hoof trimming and nutrition.”

https://www.cargill.com/page/bbfaw

37

Our Better Care goals and performance

2018 PRIORIT IES STATUS OUR PERFORMANCE 2019 PRIORIT IES

Continue to transition all Maple Leaf Foods sows to open housing by the end of 2021.

We completed our conversion of 44,000 sows to advanced open sow housing. We are on track to transition 66,000 by the end of 2021.

• Continue to transition all Maple Leaf Foods sows to advanced open sow housing by the end of 2021.

• Continue to pilot initiatives to promote play and reduce boredom in sow barns.

• Continue to pilot enrichment in broiler chicken barns and engage independent producers on enrichment pilots.

• Roll out our digital transportation monitoring system by the end of 2019.

• Deliver our Animal Care training modules by the end of 2019.

• Start and complete installation and implementation of enrichment and toys in all nursery and growing pig barns in 2019.

Pilot initiatives to promote play and reduce boredom in sow barns.

We piloted enrichment in all types of Maple Leaf Foods barns. Sow barn trials are still ongoing.

Pilot enrichment in Maple Leaf Foods poultry broiler barns and engage an independent producer on enrichment pilots.

Multiple trials were completed in conjunction with genetic evaluation, and more trials are planned for 2019.

Implement our poultry transportation strategy.

We hired four new on-farm resources to conduct pre-loading animal welfare assessments and launched our digital transportation monitoring system in two of our sites.

Develop and implement two additional modules of animal care training in 2018, including Animal Care 101 and Animal Care Foundations training modules for all Maple Leaf Foods employees who affect the lives of animals.

Our Animal Care 101 training module has been developed but was not fully delivered in 2018. Our Animal Care Foundations training module was completed and piloted in 2018, but was only partially rolled out.

Provide enrichment and toys in all nursery and growing pig barns.

We have researched and sourced toys for all our nursery and growing pigs and will implement them in 2019.

Achieved Part ial ly Achieved On Track Did Not Meet

SUSTAINABILITY AT MAPLE LEAF FOODS BETTER FOOD BETTER CARE BETTER COMMUNITIES BETTER PLANET GRI INDEX

39


38


Farm animal welfare is a collective issue for the food industry, as well as being an individual issue for each company in the industry. Making progress and raising standards across the industry requires individual companies to support research and development programmes to improve farm animal welfare, to share their knowledge and expertise with their suppliers and with their industry peers, to play a supportive role in public policy debates around farm animal welfare, and to support industry and stakeholder initiatives directed at improving farm animal welfare. Many companies – 55 of the 150 companies (37%) – talk about this research as part of their reporting on farm animal welfare. For example:

• Kaufland’s Chicken and Rooster initiative supports farmers from Baden-Württemberg and Bavaria to rear male chicks from laying hen breeds. The company has set itself the goal of enabling the male chicks in the laying hen industry to live longer: the costs for rearing the males will be borne by the sale of the chicken meat and by a price premium for the eggs of the associated hens. Eggs from this project will be sold in more than 200 Kaufland stores. A similar initiative in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Berlin and Brandenburg, commits the company to selling the resulting products in over 70 stores.

• Jerónimo Martins Agribusiness (JMA), a company of the Jerónimo Martins Group, signed a cooperation agreement with the University of Évora for the development of research activities and to support education. Under this agreement, several theory-practical, theory-scientific and research activities, addressing animal welfare and animal nutrition, will be implemented in JMA’s business areas and at its three subsidiaries, which operate in the animal husbandry, aquaculture and dairy sectors.

• In FY2019, Saputo announced a new partnership with the Iowa State University’s College of Veterinary Medicine, contributing CDN$100,000 over the next two years to the development of benchmarking and training materials in dairy goat care and handling, as well as producer outreach workshops. This is in addition to our existing partnerships with the University of Guelph and the University of Wisconsin, representing a total investment of CDN$250,000 in FY2019.

• Tyson Foods partners with researchers on potential animal welfare improvements, focusing on areas such as animal mobility and lameness, antibiotics alternatives, and good production management. Over the past 18 months, the company has invested approximately $170,000 in research initiated by universities, agricultural organisations or companies.

Alongside investment in research and development, it is necessary to have the right conditions – for example, the right policy frameworks, incentives, knowledge and understanding across the industry – to ensure that research outputs and better practice more generally are adopted across the industry. This cannot be achieved by companies on their own but requires them to work in collaboration with their supply chain partners as well as other companies, industry bodies, policy makers and specialist advisors to create the right conditions for change.

Companies are starting to collaborate with relevant trade associations and with other groups to raise the profile of farm animal welfare issues, to build understanding inside the food industry and externally, and to influence public policy and legislation. Sixty-four (43%) of the 150 companies covered by this year’s Benchmark report that they work with others to advance farm animal welfare (a number of examples are presented below). While it is difficult to draw definitive conclusions based on the information reported by companies, it appears that most of the collaborative work is focused on the technical aspects of farm animal welfare, on sharing knowledge and expertise on specific issues, and on developing standards on key farm animal welfare issues (e.g. handling procedures). These are important contributions, but they are only part of the picture. Companies provide limited if any information on how they, for example, engage with policymakers to encourage higher standards of farm animal welfare or how they are working with others to promote consumer understanding of farm animal welfare.

Advancing farm animal welfare in the food industry

Box 2.5: Examples of company initiatives aimed at advancing farm animal welfare in the industry

Carrefour collaborating on a common reference framework to evaluate animal welfareFrench supermarket, Carrefour, is participating in a project with Laboratoire d’Innovation Territorial LIT Ouesterel. The consortium of private and public actors aims to advance livestock rearing to meet societal expectations on animal welfare and the use of antibiotics. The association will first build a common benchmark for assessing animal welfare.

The company is also conducting a study tour on cage-free production. In partnership with Humane Society International (HSI), Carrefour ran an international study tour on cage-free egg production for its suppliers, its own and other retailers’ personnel, experts and government representatives. The 50 participants from ten countries discussed cage-free alternative farming solutions and technical and regulatory issues and worked on promoting a coalition on alternative egg production methods.

http://www.carrefour.com/sites/default/files/politique_bea_groupe_carrefour.pdf

Perdue FarmsThe company’s 2019 Company Stewardship Report (p23) states “At our Research Farm, we’re learning about different chicken breeds and studying the effects of brighter light, more space, outdoor access and enrichments – all part of our continuous improvement in poultry care.”

Its Animal Care Report 2019 demonstrates commitment to research and innovation across key chicken welfare areas. For example, the company has made a commitment to install controlled atmosphere stunning (CAS) equipment in its poultry harvest facilities, which it has started implementing. Perdue Farms also hosts an annual Animal Care Summit, bringing together animal care experts and advocates, customers, farmers, and company leadership.

The company has introduced various financial incentives to ensure that broiler farmer income is not negatively impacted by the implementation of higher welfare measures, such as incentivising live bird-handling and rewards for welfare outcomes in addition to productivity.

https://corporate.perduefarms.com/pdfs/perdue_animal_care_report_2019.pdf

Box 2.4: Examples of corporate objectives and targets linked to farm animal welfare

FrieslandCampina Working Toward Sustainable Dairy Production“FrieslandCampina is working on reducing the ecological footprint of the dairy farming sector, retaining pasture grazing, continuously improving animal health and animal welfare, and preserving biodiversity. The aim is to reduce the use of scarce natural resources such as water, raw materials and fossil fuels. FrieslandCampina aims to keep the emission of greenhouse gases in 2020 equal to 2010 levels. This also applies in case of an increase in milk production. This includes the greenhouse gases released at member dairy farms, during transport from the farm to production facilities and when the dairy is processed at the production facilities.

The Company encourages member dairy farmers to start working with the Biodiversity Monitor’s climate, life cycle management and nature indicators on their farm, and also encourages pasture grazing. Its 2020 Sustainability Targets include achieving 81.2 percent (partial) pasture grazing

Dairy farmers applying pasture grazing receive a 1.50 euro meadow milk premium per 100 kilos of milk for 2018. An amount of 1.00 euro per 100 kilos of meadow milk is paid from the operating profit. On average, on all FrieslandCampina member milk, this amounted to 0.63 euro per 100 kilos of milk. Furthermore, another 0.50 euro per 100 kilos of meadow milk is paid out pursuant to cooperative schemes. To finance this amount, 0.35 euro per 100 kilos of milk is withheld from all milk. This also pays for the partial pasture grazing premium.”

https://www.frieslandcampina.com/app/uploads/sites/2/2019/02/Annual-Report-2018-FrieslandCampina-NV-WEB.pdf

41


40


Tesco Offers Fair for Farmers Guarantee“Tesco’s fresh milk is produced from cows on farms that are part of our Tesco Sustainable Dairy Group (TSDG) and covered by our Fair for Farmers Guarantee. Nearly 730 farms are needed to produce the fresh milk for our Tesco stores; with the herd size varying from small 60 cow herds to larger herds across the country. Each farm manages their production system to suit the geography and climate from South East England to Wales and Scotland. All our TSDG dairy farms in addition to the Red Tractor assurance meet our specific Tesco Livestock Requirements. We have clear welfare measures for cow body condition, antibiotic usage, calving success, record keeping and more. We set targets for improvement each year, and monitor important areas such as lameness, cleanliness and cow health in each farm. This allows TSDG farmers to benchmark their performance with the rest of the group and allows us to target any help and resources to the areas where farmers need it most. To make sure our suppliers are always striving to meet our requirements our TSDG farms are visited every year by an independent auditor.

Since 2008 we have worked with Liverpool University’s Tesco Dairy Centre of Excellence at Wood Park, Neston. Our TSDG farmers and the wider industry have benefited from trials on bedding, mobility, fertility and other research and sharing of best practice.

Calves produced on TSDG dairy farms are not allowed to be live exported, except for breeding purposes. We discourage the use of antibiotics to prevent disease and since 2008 we have been encouraging our TSDG to minimise the use of antibiotics important for human health in cows and calves. Current areas of focus for us include work to drive out Johnes from our TSDG herd, promoting high standards in biosecurity with our satellite best practice dairy unit at South West England agricultural college and the introduction of a scorecard to measure both efficiency and health and wellbeing of our Tesco TSDG farms. We are working with vets to strengthen how we can support them in a preventative medicine approach and to reduce further the antibiotic u

Date post:	18-Feb-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Business Benchmark on Farm Animal Welfare 2019 Report ......companies that are considered to have...

Documents